JURISDICTION 591

movables, even though the parties may be resident or domiciled
in England.1 This rule is generally based upon the practical
consideration that only the courts of the situs can make an
effective decree with regard to land.

'In respect to immovable property,' said Meili,2 'every attempt of
any foreign tribunal to found a jurisdiction over it must, from the very
nature of the case, be utterly nugatory, and its decree must be for ever
incapable of execution in rem?

It was at one time thought, however, that as regards this Absence of
country the rule was not based on substantial grounds, but jurisdiction
was due to the technicalities of the English law of procedure. In bas^dupon
early days juries were chosen from persons acquainted with the doctrine of
parties and with the merits of a case, and it was one of the
strictest rules of procedure that litigants should lay the venue
with exactness, i.e. should state with the utmost certainty the
place where the facts giving rise to the dispute had arisen. The
venue> or the place from which the jury was summoned, had to
be the place where the cause of action arose. This meant, of
course, that it was impossible to entertain an action in England
which related to foreign land. A distinction, however, was later
made between local and transitory actions. If a cause of action
was one that might have arisen anywhere, it was transitory \ if it
was one that could have arisen only in one place, it was local.
In local matters, such as claims to the ownership of land, the
venue had still to be laid with accuracy, but in transitory
matters the plaintiff was allowed to lay the venue where he
pleased. Local venues were abolished by the Judicature Act and
by the Rules made thereunder, and the rule now is that *in every
action in every Division the place of trial shall be fixed by the
court or judge'.3 This abolition of local actions removed the
technical objection to the possibility of bringing an action in
respect of foreign immovables before an English court, and it
was not, long before it was suggested, and indeed decided, that
such actions could now be entertained. This argument was

| strongly pressed in British South Africa Company v. Companhia
de Mozambique**

\ * This was an action of trespass brought against the defendants for

1 British South Africa Co* v. Companhia de Mozambique, [1893] A.C. 602;
Deschamps v. Miller, [1908] r Ch. 856, per Parker J*

2 International Civil and Commercial Law9 Eng. tr. (1905), p. 279.

3 R.S.C., O. xxxvi, R. i. For the history and a full account of the subject see
the notes to Mostyn v. Fabrigas in Smith's Leading Cases (i2th ed.), i. 615-19.

4 [1893] A.C. 602.